Deforestation deceit reflects badly on environmental campaigners

While these are damning claims, it doesn’t take much research to refute them.

First, as sustainable timber production in Tasmanian forests is not “deforestation” because harvested areas are immediately regenerated, the Al Jazeera report’s claim that timber production is responsible for an annual loss of 15,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest is clearly nonsense.

The report’s claim that Tasmania has lost two-thirds of its original forest cover is also wrong. The Tasmanian government’s State of the Forests Tasmania 2006 report states that 64.5 per cent of the 4.8 million hectares of pre-European forest cover is still present. Of the forest that has been lost, almost all was cleared for agriculture, infrastructure, and urban development. A small proportion of native forest (about 3 per cent of the pre-European total) has been converted to timber plantations over a long period, but this practice has now virtually ceased.

The State of the Forests Tasmania 2006 report also notes that 47 per cent of the state’s forests are contained in national parks and various other conservation reserves where no timber production is permitted. In addition, further areas of forest are effectively reserved by dint of being either unsuited or inaccessible for wood production, or by being in private ownership where there is no intention to harvest.

Overall, within Tasmania’s publicly-owned forests - which forest activists continue to treat as a battleground - wood production is restricted to within just a 26 per cent portion. Clearly, the oft-aired notion that logging will destroy Tasmania’s forests is simply wrong.

Despite this, the Al Jazeera report included an interview with Greens Senator, Christine Milne, who described Tasmanian logging as a “crime against humanity in a world where we need to be addressing climate change”. Despite her claim, the use of a portion of Tasmania’s forests for sustainable timber production is one of the best ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it draws on a renewable resource which can be harvested, processed and manufactured using a fraction of the emissions that would otherwise be needed to produce alternative construction materials such as steel, aluminium, and concrete.

In addition, the continuing campaigns to close timber industries in Australia, where sustainable forest management is achievable, are simply enhancing the market conditions that help drive the real problem of tropical deforestation. In the keynote speech at the recent FAO World Forestry Congress, HRH Prince Charles, noted that unless tropical deforestation is controlled there is no chance of effectively addressing climate change. On this basis, it could be argued that it is Christine Milne and her cohorts who are committing the “crime against humanity”.

Sadly, the international misrepresentation of the state of Tasmania’s environment may be causing substantial damage given the socio-economic importance of the state’s reputation as a leading eco-tourism destination. Indeed, the fact that Tasmania ranks so highly in this area speaks volumes for the real state of its environment and puts the claims of anti-logging activists into perspective. Understandably then, there is considerable anger over these continuing efforts to trash the state’s reputation.

The media must also shoulder blame for blatant misrepresentations of Australian forestry. In this case, Al Jazeera’s reporter could have saved the cost on an airfare if he had taken the time to do some rudimentary background research rather than simply accepting without question the word of activists fanatically dedicated to closing Tasmania’s native timber industry. The influence of these activists is evident not only in the general tone of the resultant report and its outrageous claims, but also in its use of video footage previously used by The Wilderness Society in 2006.

That the media has fallen for this trap so often suggests that journalists either have insufficient time to properly research the issues, or are willingly acting as cheerleaders for environmental activism. Sadly, there is much to suggest that, at least when it comes to forestry, too many journalists fall into the latter category. This may be understandable given the natural distaste for the ugly business of cutting down trees, but is highly unprofessional for a vocation that is ethically bound to report fully, objectively and fairly.

In world afflicted with many environmental problems, the community needs far more from the media if it is to discern legitimate environmental threats from activities which may be ideologically-hated by some, but actually pose little or no threat, or are indeed environmentally beneficial.

The community also needs an environmental movement that can put aside its historical prejudices to focus on the issues that really matter. With regard to Australia’s public forests these critical issues are unnaturally severe fire, feral animals, and exotic weeds which are having an infinitely greater impact on biodiversity than timber production which (nationally) is restricted to just a net 6 per cent of their area.

Until the environmental movement refocuses and campaigns in a manner that honestly acknowledges the real state of Australia’s environment and its management, they will increasingly be regarded by thinking Australians as fanatics more intent on attaining ideological outcomes which in some cases, including the issue of forests, will actually be counter-productive to environmental improvement.

This is a concern, given that raising and maintaining environmental awareness is such a critically important role. However, by continuing to campaign on the basis of gross exaggeration, environmental activists will ultimately diminish trust, create cynicism, and undermine their own credibility.